APCOA Maidenhead accidental overstay

leeby

Hi All,
On Friday Night I arrived at Maidenhead Railway station and bought what i thought to be a 24 hour ticket (the machine clearly says "press button once for first days parking") for around £5. I collected the car the next morning and found that it had a ticket on it with a "fine" of £80.

The ticket does show that it expired at midnight on Friday (I was in a rush and didnt spot it) and the fine seems incredibly high compared to the cost of parking.

The cartpark is operated by APCOA and having read here I understand your advice is to ignore generally, and that they'll operate through Roxburgh and Graham White. I'd like to clarify a few things:

Being on a railway station doesnt change the legal standing?
Everyone says "APCOA dont do court" is this true? if so why?
If it ever did go to court I believe I have a fair case that the signage is unclear and the fine is unfairly high, would you agree?

The ticket I received looks exactly the same as this one,(although the reason for the charge is different obviously)
(http:// and .html removed by foruum rules)
forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t47893

Thanks all, my missus is worried we should pay or appeal to avoid a CCJ/similar and I'm thinking we shouldn't.

HO87

1. You have not been fined you have merely been given an invoice. No private company is empowered to fine anybody regardless of what that company may think and want you to think.

2. APCOA do not do court because to take cases to court incurs costs in management and supervisory time that they cannot realistically recover. Besides, it also absorbs time in which they can issue even more invoices to unsuspecting motorists. The private parking company business model is a numbers game and with about a 60% hit rate (60%, roughly, of motorists pay up) there comes a point when they simply move on - hence the advice to ignore.

3. In the remote event that you were taken to court APCOA can only claim their reasonable losses - and you had paid meaning that their actual loss in your case is zero.

4. Roxburghe (who are just debt collectors with no more powers to force people to pay up than you and I - though they want everyone to believe that they do) are currently being investigated by the Office of Fair Trading. They have also been told that the OFT is "minded to revoke" their debt collectors licence. Graham White's is just another name that Roxburghe's use to write to you under. The one and only solicitor linked with that so-called company - Michael Sobell - is in his 70's and failed to make it to a court in Birmingham last week and the case was dismissed as a result.

5. Neither you nor your missus should worry about a CCJ - that is a long way off - if it ever happens. Nor should you worry about bailiffs as they would come after a CCJ and we're nowhere near that yet if ever. Such things are held up as threats to alleged debtors to keep them focussed on paying the money - that in your case you do not even owe.

leeby

Fantastic response, thanks so much. I'll keep this thread alive with any future correspondence I receive as it might be helpful to others.

Thanks again

lee.

leeby

Thought I'd read a little more into this, and found an FAQ that is posted fairly frequently

forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=ibwiki&cmd=article&id=56

The first section says "Firstly the important thing to remember is that Private Parking Companies are not backed by any aspect of criminal law. Tickets from Traffic Wardens working for the police or local authorities or tickets issued by police officers are (this guide also excludes those tickets issues pursuant to the Transport Act 2000 governing tickets issued to vehicles on behalf of railtrack or rail operators)."

Since I was parked in the carpark of a station operated by First Great Western (a rail company) Does my case still fall under the normal PPC rules or am I bound by the Road Traffic Act?

Thanks,
Lee.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

The traffic act wouldnt be part of it it would come under the railway bylaws - all depending if it was actually on railway land and was issued to you as such.

Inflatable_Armadillo

leeby wrote: »

Thought I'd read a little more into this, and found an FAQ that is posted fairly frequently

forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autocom=ibwiki&cmd=article&id=56

The first section says "Firstly the important thing to remember is that Private Parking Companies are not backed by any aspect of criminal law. Tickets from Traffic Wardens working for the police or local authorities or tickets issued by police officers are (this guide also excludes those tickets issues pursuant to the Transport Act 2000 governing tickets issued to vehicles on behalf of railtrack or rail operators)."

Since I was parked in the carpark of a station operated by First Great Western (a rail company) Does my case still fall under the normal PPC rules or am I bound by the Road Traffic Act?

Thanks,
Lee.

Lee

There are several threads on PePiPoo about the Railway bye-law issues in respect of parking but they are more often than not for things like obstruction, parking outside a marked bay etc. If it was an official contravention of these bye-laws then that would be a different issue!

However... If you have the 'standard' APOCA 'threat-o-gram' as shown on the above thread and the one on PePiPoo (which it appears you do) and it does not mention railway bye-laws then I would be 99.9% certain you just have the normal speculative PPC invoice.

It is fairly usual for the bigger PPC's (APCOA, NCP etc) to operate car parks seemingly as the 'official' station car park, but often the PPC fund the construction or installation of that car park and just lease the land from Network Rail or the rail operator for that station.

If you have any doubts, post the invoice up here but as it sounds like you have a 'standard' APCOA one, then I would just continue to ignore!

Inflatable_Armadillo

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

The traffic act wouldnt be part of it it would come under the railway bylaws - all depending if it was actually on railway land and was issued to you as such.

I think the general consensus is that this is the key issue and not land ownership as it is possible for them to lease land to third parties (PPC etc), although to issue a ticket under the bye-laws they would indeed have to both own the land and issue the ticket in full accordance with the bye-laws as you correctly state.

It strikes me from the OP's post that they are not claiming to have issued the 'ticket' for contravention of the railway bye-laws, and it such it is just a PPC invoice.

The threads on this subject have recently been about 'tickets' claiming to be issued under the bye-laws by a PPC but it would appear that they are just hollow threats and they are the usual questionable PPC tactics!!!

jlsmith_2

See my thread Meteor / Southeastern Rail. I had a similar situation to you where the ticket for the car expired overnight.

Meteor issued a PPC ticket for breach of terms and conditions and then tried to use the byelaws as a stick to threaten magistrates' court. Their bluff ran out, as did the time required for them to lay an information at the court, and they have stopped writing to me after I denied the debts and threatened to report their debt collectors for contravention of harrassment laws. They had three tickets which they pursued me for, and they have given up on them all.

Railway byelaws give only a technical prospect of a prosecution being brought - read my thread for the reasons why in most cases it probably isn't even possible, let alone likely.

vax2002

This company is renowned for coming back for MORE MONEY with late payment charges.
So how much are you budgeting to pay the scammers off ?
At what point would you stand up and say OK then take us to court ?
Or will you just keep sending the money as the threats arrive.
The best way to stand up to bullies is at the first threat.

jlsmith_2

I've just brought my thread to the top with an update - here it is for future reference.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3289352